Obama stand on same-sex marriage draws reaction in Utah

Gay marriage is all about children. Do we want 2 gay men or women raising our
children and teaching/nurturing them or do we want a father and mother doing
that job?

worfMcallen, TX

May 13, 2012 12:00 a.m.

Everybody knows right from wrong till rationalization kicks in.

Really???Kearns, UT

May 12, 2012 2:31 a.m.

So many comments on here make me sad. I am amazed I made it through junior high
and high school with the names I was called. I dreaded seeing certain classmates
because of how unsafe they made me feel. I was treated horribly by the kids that
I had to sit with in Sunday School and other church meetings. It was a very
painful experience, yet somehow I survived.

Now, with the modern
technologies we have, I see adults bullying each other on Facebook and comment
threads like this. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a teenager
seeing the hateful comments spread in so many new ways.

Most gay
people do not have an agenda beyond making their communities a safer place to
live. From the comments I read on here, it looks like we have a very long way to
go.

PCentral, Utah

May 11, 2012 11:58 p.m.

I like to think I am a simple guy ..

"jr85United Kingdom ,
00

I am LDS and really feel sad that I am apart of a global community
that treats other human beings like this. Every living soul on this planet has
the right to have equal access to EVERY law regardless of their religion, race,
gender or sexual orientation...."

We define and uphold certain
definations and procdurs. If you are to be a MD then there are certain
requirements, If you are going to be called an electrican, other requirements
and definations will apply to you.

If an MD were to "pose" as
an electrician, or anyone who wanted could call himseld an electrician there
would be confusion & likely problems. Everyone does have the equal right to
do those things to be called an electrician.

To me,the defination of
marriage equals man plus woman and everyone has an equal opportunity to marry
someone of the opposite sex. Some may not want to for personal reasons.

Since legal union etc.doesn't seem to satisfy, maybe we should define
"EGAIRRMA" (marriage backwards) as between whomever or whatever
circumstances.Everyone would have the "right" to do that if requirements
aremet.

Logic101Salt Lake, UT

May 11, 2012 2:33 p.m.

To All Members who seem to have a problem with other members accepting gay
marriage -

Please read the following that Elder L. Whitney Clayton
said during the Prop 8 fight:

"Latter-day Saints are free to
disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction," said
L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear
them no ill will."

Flying FinnMurray, UT

May 11, 2012 2:00 p.m.

LDS Liberal writes: FYI - North Carolina is a State of America, not THE United
States of America.

Actually Rifleman raises a valid question. Why
would 61 percent of the voters in North Carolina, including many democrats, vote
in favor of the traditional family amendment if half of the population favors
same sex marriages? Common sense suggests that the polls are flawed or
conducted with the same accuracy as the UN census.

SSMDSilver Spring, MD

May 11, 2012 1:40 p.m.

Senator Reid might want to consider this statement from Elder Dallin Oaks and
relate it to Reid's logic on gay marriage: "If we say we are
anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are
saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that
encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as
serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask
themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by
the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their
choices."

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 1:38 p.m.

A Voice: "If the same constitution didn't recognize gay marriage back
then, then they need to ammend it to call it a 'right' today. Plain
and simple.

It needs to be "A DEFINED RIGHT" in our
constitution to be exempt from the popular vote."

---------------

Read Amendment #9. Simple. Many rights not
specified in the constiution but they are still rights!

Now, if gay
marriage needs to have an amendment to call it a right because it wasn't
originally in the constitution, so does heterosexual marriage because it was not
listed as a right in the original document or any of the amendments, right?

Culture of RationalizationSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 1:36 p.m.

"jr85":,You claim to be LDS but you support gay marriage. Are you
familiar with the phrase, "No man can serve two masters"?

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 1:31 p.m.

jake2010,

I agree that if two or three or ten people want to marry
each other, they should be able to as long as they are adults and choose it for
themselves. Polygamy is notorious for marrying off girls to older men without
their consent or when they are too young to consent.

The two problems
with polygamy is that (1)the marriage laws have changed since BY's day. No
longer is everything owned by the man but is shared equally by the wife. So,
when you marry your first wife, she will own 1/2 of the property and you, 1/2.
When you marry your second, she will own 1/4 and you will own 1/4. You better
be a pretty rich man to marry 25,000 women and still own anything. And (2)Women
would also be able to marry as many men as they want to also. So there goes all
sanity! You could be married to two sisters that are also married to your best
friend who is also married to your mother who is married to...Pure chaos. All
the marriage laws in the US are written to support just 2 people.

RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

May 11, 2012 1:26 p.m.

Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UT"FYI - North Carolina is a State of
America, not THE United States of America.Huge difference."

You may believe what the polls tell you but I prefer to believe what voters in
a state friendly to the Democrats say at the ballot box. It is hard to spin the
61% vote in NC as a fluke. Maybe they should demand a recount.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 1:23 p.m.

@Redshirt"Why is their definition of marriage valid and a polygamists
definition wrong if they are both based on who you love?"

*shrugs* I think polygamy is morally wrong but I don't see any reason why
it should be illegal (making it legal would be a bit messy since marriage is a
2-person contract so there'd have to be some reasonable way to deal with
it). Though it's kinda funny that I have to be the one to defend Joseph
Smith in this context.

@Jake2010"And Warren Jeffs and any
others presently imprisoned immediately released with a nation's
apology."

No they wouldn't. Abuse and child marriage would
still be illegal. I'm pretty sure he was charged with something other than
bigamy/polygamy.

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 1:09 p.m.

TOOSanpete, UTOn another note, the family of the "victim"
that Romney supposedly assaulted because he was gay has come out and said that
the story about Romney is inaccurate. Imagine that, leave it to the left to
distort a story to look like they are the good guys.

-------------

Half Truth!

The sister merely said that she did not hear
about the incident. Her brother never talked about it. The very last thing
that she said was that, if it happened, he was not the type to ever mention
anything about it.

That does not mean that it didn't happen or
that it was different than what was reported.

Five different people
were interviewed - one still considers Romney his friend. All recounted pretty
much the same story.

Today, Romney would be suspended. That is
considered an assult and his verbal taunting and saying "atta girl" when
another gay person spoke is verbal taunting, bullying. Times have changed,
thank goodness.

Jake2010bountiful, ut

May 11, 2012 1:02 p.m.

In order for Obama's stand on marriage to matter one iota wouldn't the
constitution have to be rewritten to where it became the federal building that
we got our marriage licenses? And I voice again that Gay rights activists are
not really for the equal 'protection of all' but rather only
protection that supports their life choices..... For to be truly fair and
equitable plural marriage would also have to become legal. And Warren Jeffs and
any others presently imprisoned immediately released with a nation's
apology.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

May 11, 2012 12:57 p.m.

@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT12:14 p.m. May 11, 2012What do you
mean RedShirt? --- We can’t answer your question because it’s not
directed at us, but to you, that’s why.Your scenario is the
definition of an “Open-Marriage” – not Gay marriage, and it
was the definition of marriage that GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich tried to run
on.

FYI -
North Carolina is a State of America, not THE United States of America.Huge difference.

LValfreCHICAGO, IL

May 11, 2012 12:46 p.m.

@RedShirt

I will repeat the questions that most supporters of Gay
marriage hate to answer:

If marriage is defined by who you love, then
what is to stop 1 man and 3 women, 3 men and 1 woman, 2 men and 2 women, 4 men,
4 women, or any combination of men and women from getting married? By changing
the definition of marriage to be based purely on emotion, how does that restrict
marriage to only 2 people?"

I don't hate to answer this. In
a free society you can marry whomever you like as long as nobody's hurt. I
hate when people bring up polygamy vs. gay marriage as if they're even
related. I never even heard of polygamy until i found out Mormon's used to
practice it until the government made them stop .... cough .... I mean God told
them to stop.

The definition of marriage is different to a lot of
people. The government has no right to define marriage .... they are supposed
to protect our freedom to marry. That's it.

Jake2010bountiful, ut

May 11, 2012 12:39 p.m.

well said redshirt well said! Exactly! If you are to allow gay marriage than by
dang and high water you better give me my 'right' to marry 25,000
women! What on earth is the difference? Answer is very simply NOTHING!

More than 61% percent of North Carolina voters cast
their votes in favor of Amendment 1 which ban recognition of any form of
relationship that is not a legally married hetereosexual couple. The polls that
really count are the ones that occur in the voting booth.

The
problem for Obama is that they are going to hold the Democratic Convention in NC
and many of that state's Democrats voted for Amendment 1.

RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT

May 11, 2012 12:14 p.m.

I will repeat the questions that most supporters of Gay marriage hate to
answer:

If marriage is defined by who you love, then what is to stop
1 man and 3 women, 3 men and 1 woman, 2 men and 2 women, 4 men, 4 women, or any
combination of men and women from getting married? By changing the definition
of marriage to be based purely on emotion, how does that restrict marriage to
only 2 people?

Most gay marriage supporters that I have asked those
questions to, have said that plural marriage is bad. Why is their definition of
marriage valid and a polygamists definition wrong if they are both based on who
you love?

Freedom-In-DangerWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

May 11, 2012 12:09 p.m.

"The fact is we have 10 countries and abot half a dozen states with gay
marriage and that hasn't caused any problems"

Yeah, it
hasn't caused any problems that people are willing to admit. A lot of
problems stay at home. Liberal have no problem with Hollywood films that depict
the 'picture perfect' religious family that secretly has problems with
in, yet gay so-called "families" never seem to have any problems.

Gee golly... isn't that convenient.

Rome didn't
fall instantly, but if fell. The Nephites fell too, but only after they eroded
the Gospel from their lives over time. Countries that marry gays may not have
fallen yet, but it doesn't prove they won't. The clock is ticking for
all things to be proven. I know where I want to stand when that happens.

Baccus0902Leesburg, VA

May 11, 2012 11:39 a.m.

‘Obama stand on same-sex marriage draws reaction in Utah’

Just the expected reaction, nothing new . Just the same tired and old
arguments of a stagnant group with the need to feel secure in their faith.

Probably Marx didn't know of the Mormons, but certainly we could
apply his statement " Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless
situation. It is the opium of the people"

Religion is not
necessarily bad. Except when instead of liberation it brings oppression to its
followers and those who oppose it or are indifferent to it.

Heaven or
Fire. Glory or Doom. What a limited perception of humanity.

The true
words and love of Christ brings real liberation, not the blinded and sectarian
arguments of men.

All human beings are children of God and all should
enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with that
elevated status, including the Right to marry the one you love, regardless race,
social status, or sex, or other people's opinions or beliefs.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

May 11, 2012 11:04 a.m.

@RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

Whatever you say Rifleman,
Whatever you say....

According to the March 2012 Wall Street
Journal/NBC News poll currently 49% of Americans favor gay marriage, with
40% opposed.

That represents a flip from October 2009, when
49% were opposed and 41% were in favor.

Go back to March 2004, and
62% were opposed, vs. only 30% in favor.

Mitt Romney should have
Flipped when he should have Flopped.

Although I may not agree with
his decision personally, Pres. Obama hit the American political mark,
while Mitt Romney was out chasing the Tea-Parties Target.

Riverton CougarRiverton, UT

May 11, 2012 10:55 a.m.

"The fact is we have 10 countries and abot half a dozen states with gay
marriage and that hasn't caused any problems. Not even New Hampshire's
republican legislature could get a repeal of gay marriage passed (it wasn't
even close) probably because they can see that nothing is being harmed by
it."

That's what they said about tobacco and alcohol a long
time ago.

RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

May 11, 2012 10:48 a.m.

Republicans running for office here in Utah should thank Obama for a helping
hand. The majority will make their opinion on the subject known in November in
the voting booth.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 10:42 a.m.

@Stephen Kent EhatHonestly, I don't care if it was or wasn't
part of past history since using that argument against gay marriage is just an
argument from tradition logical fallacy anyway; I should've just stuck to
that rather than pass along something a friend posted on facebook. The fact is
we have 10 countries and abot half a dozen states with gay marriage and that
hasn't caused any problems. Not even New Hampshire's republican
legislature could get a repeal of gay marriage passed (it wasn't even
close) probably because they can see that nothing is being harmed by it.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

May 11, 2012 10:34 a.m.

You know -- All this arguing would go away with legal "Civil
Unions",

something the GOP shot down years ago because it would
require a "compromise", and we have all seen that the far-right
GOP with their All-or-Nothing thinking is unable and unwilling to compromise on
anything with their My-way-or-the-By-way stiffnecked, obstuctionist,
stubborness.

Stephen Kent EhatLindon, UT

May 11, 2012 10:17 a.m.

John Boswell's lexicographical arguments have seeming unending influence,
even here in atl134's comment ("Do a search for 'the time when
same-sex marriage was a Chritian rite'.").

Boswell's
translation of "homologia" in his appended translation of Passion of
Sergius and Bacchus as "love, unity, union, living together,
togetherness" does not mean same-sex marriage or even same-sex sexual
relations.

Boswell had an agenda. He wanted to undercut history by
simply rewriting it through the lens of mistranslation.

In martyrdom
accounts it almost invariably means "confession" of faith. Saints
Sergius and Bacchus died together in love and unity.

atl134 could
just as easily claim that John Boswell's "homologia" concerning
Saints Sergius and Bacchus should be applied also to two latter-day martyrs who
were brothers (who in life "were not divided, and in death they were not
separated!").

Sometimes we are gullible. But we aren't that
gullible.

Fordham University has a page about John Boswell's
views on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans* History. (Google those terms.)

Read some of the literature. Was this a Christian rite or did John
Boswell present this present generation with advocacy masquerading as
scholarship.

Freedom-In-DangerWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

May 11, 2012 10:03 a.m.

@jr85 "Practice what we preach fellow members"

What you
preach? Or what the church teaches?Believe it or not, you are not President
Monson.

And teaching false doctrines against what has been revealed
isn't something I'd be keen on doing.

What missionaries
teach is literally scripture per the D&C. What the prophet teaches is no
less than that. What the apostles teach is no less than that. The scriptures not
only tell us this, but drill it in repeatedly. These priesthood holders are
imperfect, but they teach the truth and are called of God to do the work they
are doing. They unanimously signed and proclaimed to the world that marriage is
between a man and a woman. Biblical and LDS Scriptures both define marriage as
between a man and a woman only. And in nearly every General Conference it is
restated. The proclamation didn't say "we ordain" but that
"marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God". It has been
said enough that denying it now is very unwise.

We should practice
what is preached to us. We shouldn't try to preach ourselves when it
isn't our calling.

LValfreCHICAGO, IL

May 11, 2012 10:00 a.m.

@Mountanman

"In the entire history of mankind, when has marriage
NOT been defined as a union between and man and a woman? Answer: NEVER! Who is
the one who is backwards here?"

In the entire history of mankind
there wasn't always marriage. Marriage started when man ordained it ... do
you know your history or do you believe the worlds only 2-4000 years old?

A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 9:44 a.m.

Attention everyone:

Did I say the framers were perfect? Did I say
they did everything right? No, I didn't.

What I did say is that
they didn't frame a constitution that recognized Gay marriage.

They also didn't frame one that banned slavery. It was ammended to
clarify. If the same constitution didn't recognize gay marriage back then,
then they need to ammend it to call it a 'right' today. Plain and
simple.

It needs to be "A DEFINED RIGHT" in our constitution
to be exempt from the popular vote.

-------

UtahBlueDevil,

You're absolutely right. The constitution
doesn't define it one way or another. But the laws we've passed do.
And if you want to say that those laws are unconstitutional, then the
constitution would have to define it as such- as "A man and a woman
only" can still satisfy the "equal protection of the laws" by
applying to all of us equally.

Marx felt "equally entitled"
to what others have. Governing is the right of the people. State recognition
belongs to all of us to qualify. Those who would rather dictate the law
themselves instead of democratically vote argue to destroy freedom.

bandersenSaint George, UT

May 11, 2012 9:43 a.m.

How come Reid is against polygamy, or bigamy, or two children marrying each
other? Seems his understanding of "love" is discriminatory? As is the
case with most politicians; no courage, no principles, but enjoying the power
and the money of their position.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

May 11, 2012 9:28 a.m.

Ummmm...let me guess.

Utahans don't like him?[surprise!]

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 9:24 a.m.

MountanmanHayden, IDThose oppossed to same sex marriage are said to
be on the wrong side of history. In the entire history of mankind, when has
marraige NOT been defined as the union of a man and a woman?

----------------

Read, man! There is more than one culture that
has accepted gay marriages. Ancient China is a good place to start. Rome
accepted them between nobles. It is not a completely new idea to history.

Just check on the history of marriage - you might be surprised how new
your idea of marriage really is.

Brent78Holladay, UT

May 11, 2012 9:04 a.m.

For marriage (or any other word) to mean anything, it has to have a definition.
Definitions are inherently discriminatory in that they fail to encompass
anything excluded from the definition. You can change the definition of marriage
to encompass certain unions that are currently excluded, but this will still
leave certain others excluded. You could keep changing the definition further
until it encompasses absolutely everything and is discriminatory to no one, but
at that point the word ceases to have meaning. If you expand the definition of
the word 'apple' to encompass every form of fruit, flora, or fauna,
and then you ask someone for an apple, good luck actually getting one.

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

May 11, 2012 8:56 a.m.

In the context of freedom of religion, one persons religion should not interfere
with the rights and freedoms of another person. Otherwise stated, a citizen of
the United States of America cannot be regulated, imposed upon or limited by
another persons beliefs except as provided by law of the governments of the
American society. And our Constitution expressly forbids laws that come from
religions and not the general citizenship of the USA.

The notion of
man/women restriction is not supported or indicated in the natural world outside
of religious beliefs. And as such, should not be a lawful regulation for
American citizens.

An American citizen should have the right and
freedom to do or be as he chooses to the extent of not impinging on the rights
and freedom of others. This notion should not begin and end at the borders of
the various states.

I personally do not wish to support or condone
the Gay lifestyle, however until it can be shown that those actions do harm to
others, I support the rights of Americans to be Gay without loss of other
freedoms.

ulvegaardMedical Lake, Washington

May 11, 2012 8:55 a.m.

One thing I find interesting is a comment made by the president at the time he
was elected, that he didn't want his children to be drawn into the
political scene in the country. He wanted his daughters, and rightly so, to
stay out of the spotlight and grow up as normally as possible.

This
said, countless times he has used his children as examples as to why he is
making a political move or changing a personal theory - 'evolving'
into a different position.

I might get involved in a "bullying
help group" because my children are being threatened at school, but I'm
not going to decide to prefer Milky Way bars over Butterfinger because my
children have friends at school who like them a lot.

RidgelyMagna, UT

May 11, 2012 8:54 a.m.

I am fascinated by the Democratic (supposedly big government loving) President
taking a States Rights approach to the issue, while the Republican (supposedly
small government loving) Mitt Romney has been painted into a corner pushing for
a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

Who saw that coming?

The RockFederal Way, WA

May 11, 2012 8:53 a.m.

"Obama's statement of support isn't likely to spark any
significant legal changes surrounding gay rights in the state."

Oh, that is not quite true.

Headlines on "The
DrudgeReport":

B A C K L A S HPOLL: OBAMA TRAILS ROMNEY 7%

Obama's decision is likely to have a profound effect. Great
campaign move: FOR ROMNEY!

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 8:51 a.m.

@O'really"This is a free fall plummet"

Plummeted
all the way to being 1.0 points ahead of Romney in the RCP average.

@A voice of reasonWhat is the point of having the constitution be the
law of the land if there is no judicial review to determine that the
constitution is or isn't being followed?

"Children deserve a
Father and a Mother."

Then complain to Utah that they adopt to
single parents.

@JuliannaG"Maybe the loss of basic morals
and values"

I thought committed monogamous relationships was a
basic moral and value.

@RAB"If it were, opponents of gay
marriage would be fighting to keep gay couples from obtaining rights rather than
fighting to stop gay marriage."

North Carolina just voted by 20
point margin to ban civil unions in addition to gay marriage.

@Liberal Ted"rather than President-elect Mitt Romneys side."

Seems a bit presumptuous.

@Mountanman"In the entire
history of mankind, when has marraige NOT been defined as the union of a man and
a woman? "

Do a search for 'the time when same-sex marriage
was a Chritian rite'.

rpjenseWest Jordan, UT

May 11, 2012 8:49 a.m.

Years ago, I was camped near a lake that had been formed by the damning of a
river. An old road had been covered by water, but was used as a boat ramp. Late
at night, I heard a car approaching with obviously drunk people loudly talking
and not really paying attention. Suddenly, they saw the water, but it was too
late and they skidded with a splash into the cold, dark lake.

Today,
I hear society as I heard that car. People drunk on their pleasures, desperately
and loudly trying to convince others to accept and vindicate their lifestyles.
They want everyone to admit that the sins they commit are really okay. They
think that social acceptance will take away the sting and the pain. They
don't see the water.

Mosiah said: "Now it is not common that
the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but
it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right
... if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is
the time that the judgments of God will come upon you ..."

Nothing changes.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 8:36 a.m.

I don't get the "we have more important things to deal with now"
thing. We have over 500 representatives and senators, they can handle
multitasking, if they need time maybe they can cancel their daily 9-5
grandstanding appointment.

@A voice of reason"It isn't
a stand when you only stick around when it's popular."

Ohio
passed a bill that limited union rights. It was put to referendum. Romney
suppored the law/opposed the referendum. The referendum passed by almost 20
points. Romney backed away from his position.

North Carolina put gay
marriage/civil unions to a referendum. Obama opposed it.The referendum passed by
20. Obama went further in the direction that just got crushed in a swing state
vote. Who exactly is the one that sticks around when something is popular? I had
even predicted that when that North Carolina vote happened that that would be
the thing that keeps gay marriage from being in the Democratic convention
platform.

@DN Subscriber"distract voters from the really
important issues that are being ignored. "

Those who lack the
federal benefits that come with marriage recognition probably think it's
important.

FlabbergastedHuntington Beach, CA

May 11, 2012 8:18 a.m.

I am with so many others that see that this little trick is going to distract
people from the real issues that we should be looking at. I am opposed to gay
marriage and i have many co-workers and friends that are "gay". What is
interesting is that these are the same people that stare the most at the
opposite sex as they walk by and comment. Let's not change the term of
marriage just so the lawyers have a new population of people to earn money from
with divorces. To Obama; would you steal just because your daughter decided to
do it. You are to teach them to except people for who they are and yet teach
them right from wrong. Oh yea, you don't know right from wrong do you.You
just know how to be multiplicative with people.

TOOSanpete, UT

May 11, 2012 8:17 a.m.

On another note, the family of the "victim" that Romney supposedly
assaulted because he was gay has come out and said that the story about Romney
is inaccurate. Imagine that, leave it to the left to distort a story to look
like they are the good guys.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

May 11, 2012 8:11 a.m.

Re:Voice

" There is countless evidence that shows the impact of
changes to the traditional nuclear family having a serious and devastating
impact children."

If you are talking about same-sex marriage vs
hetero where is the evidence? When the Prop 8 case was heard in CA court, the
core defense presented by the Prop 8 side was that same sex marriage undermines
oppose sex marriage. The opposing side argued that there is a substantial body
of evidence which documents that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are
just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.
Also how marriage has historically been used "punitively" to demean
disfavored groups, how the legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been
disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of
marriage had mainly involved "shedding inequalities", which she said
strengthens marriage. She emphasized the importance of the institution of
marriage by noting that "when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get
married, and this was not trivial to them.

bandersenSaint George, UT

May 11, 2012 8:01 a.m.

The best thing about Harry Reid is that he serves as the perfect foil for the
difference between right and wrong. How would Harry Reid view Abraham Lincoln
if Abraham had said, "Well, personally I'm against slavery, but people
should be able to decide on their own whether slavery is good or bad!" Harry
Reid should be held to a higher standard! If he can't see why it is
important to stand up for the truth, then he is a failure beyond compare.

MAYHEM MIKESalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 7:59 a.m.

To quote one of my favorite cable TV personalities, "I'm a simple
person." Please, those of you who seem to be more enlightened on his issue,
and favor same-sex marriage, help me understand this one point: If a man can
marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, how, under legal restrictions
prohibiting discrimination, can one man be prohibited from marrying several
women or one woman be prohibited from marrying several men? Similarly, how can
you prohibit other more "creative" marriage combinations? Where does it
end? Or, is same-sex marriage the beginning of the total disintegration of the
traditional family unit? Perhaps, in the future, the "family" will
become the "family commune."

RidgelyMagna, UT

May 11, 2012 7:58 a.m.

At the end of the day Utah has an over reach problem.

In the Get Out
The Vote rush to pass Amendment Three in 2004, the legislature thumped their
chests in moral outrage and banned not only gay marriage, but ALL forms of legal
recognition for gay and lesbian relationships and families. It went way too
far.

Since then, the cultural landscape has shifted under the feet of
the political opportunists who threw gays and lesbians under the bus.To hear
them suddenly say they support (or that they have ALWAYS supported) civil unions
as an appropriate compromise is disingenuous at best.

When
Utah's politicians move to repeal Part Two of Amendment Three, and
introduce a sensible Civil Unions Bill, I will finally take their word on this
issue. Until then I will wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utah

May 11, 2012 7:54 a.m.

To all of you whinning because the President is not being criticized for flip
flopping..and claiming if Romney had done the same thing the criticism would be
scathing. First of all the flip flopping criticism of Romney hasn't come
primarily from the democrats but from his fellow repbulicans. Secondly the
President changed position while giving a well reasoned explination for the
change..and the change came over several years. He didn't deny his past
position.

The criticism of Romneys positions that comes from the
left is because he has changed positions within hours on more than one occassion
without any explanation..or some flimsy twisting that is obviously spin when one
watches the tape.

mohokatOgden, UT

May 11, 2012 7:38 a.m.

More smoke and mirrors from the flim flam man. Purely political. Shore up part
of his base. Campaign cash from the gay community which consists of about 20 per
cent of his bundlers. Believe it, Obama does not give a hoot about the gays or
anyone else. His only goal is his own existence. He wants another four years as
a squatter at 1600 Penn. Ave. and to fly around on Air Force one.

What in the heck are you
talking about. The Framers didn't prescribe any definition of marriage -
gay or straight. What part of the Constitution are you drawing this rhetoric
from? The framers didn't recognize black people as humans either - shall
we revert to that was well?

The framers - hint word
"framer" - built a framework for law to be created and administered. It
was never intended to be the complete cannon of law of the land. Rather a
prescription of how law can be created and enforced. It nowhere prescribes
moral law as to who may marry who, what can happen on ones own property, or
anything like that. That was left to states and other governmental bodies to
fill in the gaps.

As you say, " To argue otherwise is to
willfully be deaf to any degree of human intelligence." Or perhaps I
missed something. Please untwist my mind and show me where the document
prescribes the legal definition of marriage.

UtahBlueDevilDurham, NC

May 11, 2012 6:48 a.m.

"Quin Monson, head of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study
of Elections and Democracy, said the school's exit polls have shown the
majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage but favor some sort of legal recognition
for same-sex couples."

This really sums it up. I do not approve
of the redefinition of marriage as being pressed by some. But everyone should
have equal rights regardless of what happens behind the door of their home.
This should not be a "marriage" issue, but an equal protection under the
law issue. Diverting into the ditch by both sides sidetracks from the real
issue.

MountanmanHayden, ID

May 11, 2012 6:46 a.m.

Those oppossed to same sex marriage are said to be on the wrong side of history.
In the entire history of mankind, when has marraige NOT been defined as the
union of a man and a woman? Who therefore is on the wrong side of history?

TOOSanpete, UT

May 11, 2012 6:45 a.m.

A Scientist,

If you are going to use an example from the past, please
make it similar.

I don't think that gay marriage has ANY
equality like slavery. Where are gays getting beaten by masters? Where are
gays forced to do hard labor or be killed? Where are gays being executed for
skin color? You hear of an incidence once in a while of some lunatic doing
something horrible to a gay person, but it is not part of our culture.

There are more important things right now. People don't have jobs, yet
they still have to feed their families and pay their bills--otherwise
they're on the street. I really think that peoples physical needs are far
more important than whether or not two people should be married.

Stephen Kent EhatLindon, UT

May 11, 2012 6:04 a.m.

Campaign? No. Arcade game? Yes. Whack-A-Mole!

President Obama: Ladies
and Gentlemen! Step right up! Impress the ladies with your strength, reflexes,
and skill against 'Whack-A-Mole.'

Indeed! Whack-A-Mole! A
waist-level cabinet. Holes on top. A large, heavy, soft, mallet for the hapless
player. Moles randomly pop up from their holes. Hit them down with that unwieldy
mallet.

So far, the Moles have been:

An off-the-wall
debate question by a reporter about contraception, followed by Sandra
Fluke's testimony, leading into discussion of a "War on Women" with
little discussion of Obamacare and the War on Religion.

Funny how Matheson once again throws his support where he hopes he can keep his
job. If it came down to his vote in congress, Matheson would be more on baracks
side rather than President-elect Mitt Romneys side.

Just the same old
game from "won't take a position if it doesn't benefit
himself" matheson. Now that makes sense:)

NoodlekaboodleSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2012 5:49 a.m.

@voice of reasonMany of the framers also didn't consider black
people, people. Our constitution literally only counted black people as 3/5ths
of a person. So I mean, they were still men, not Gods and they didn't get
everything right. Not to mention that straight marriage is no longer traditional
either. This whole, women get to choose whom they marry is a very recent
development. If we really are following traditions a woman's father gets to
pre-arrange a marriage then sell off his daughter for material goods. Then she
becomes the property of her husband. Who defines what version of marriage is
traditional?

JayTeeSandy, UT

May 11, 2012 3:44 a.m.

If it were Romney, "flip-flopper!" would be shouted from the rooftops.
But since it's the anointed one, it's billed as a "careful and
evolving position" Amazing that everyone can't see through this. But
I'm sure the $40,000/plate "beautiful people" in Hollywood think
it's just glorious, and the "OCCUPY" campers will never accuse them
of being part of the 1% that works to destroy the country.

RABBountiful, UT

May 11, 2012 3:04 a.m.

Gay marriage was never about religious intolerance or hatred towards gays. If it
were, people would be trying to stop gay couples from even living together.

Gay marriage was never about civil rights. If it were, opponents of gay
marriage would be fighting to keep gay couples from obtaining rights rather than
fighting to stop gay marriage.

Gay marriage has always been about the
gay community’s true agenda - to obtain government endorsement of
homosexual behavior. Our government represents all Americans. Endorsement of
homosexual behavior goes contrary to the beliefs of millions of religious
people. Therefore, same-sex marriage is really nothing more than an attempt to
suppress religious people - forcing them to endorse homosexual behavior
regardless of their beliefs.

This is not about human rights. It is
about oppressing those who dare to believe homosexual behavior is a sin. A
government should not establish official approval of ANY behavior that is so
deeply opposed by a huge segment of the people that government is supposed to
represent!

This is NOT about equality. It is about favoring the
gay community over the religious community. Plain and simple.

jr85United Kingdom , 00

May 11, 2012 12:04 a.m.

I am LDS and really feel sad that I am apart of a global community that treats
other human beings like this. Every living soul on this planet has the right to
have equal access to EVERY law regardless of their religion, race, gender or
sexual orientation. Times are changing yet again for the better and I really
pray that the Church I love so dearly will for once be on the right (or left)
side of history rather than having convenient policy changes once laws come into
place.

I am happily married in the temple to my lovely wife and if I
ever have a son/daughter who was homosexual I would want them to be as happy as
my wife and I are. This does not make them any less human to want to love
someone.

Practice what we preach fellow members

JuliannaGFPO, AP

May 11, 2012 12:00 a.m.

How a family is constructed and the values that are taught to children are
absolutely the business of every single American. No matter how much I teach my
children to behave themselves and treat others with respect and kindness, there
is always some kid at school teaching them through their behavior that the
opposite is "cool." Maybe the loss of basic morals and values is
"cool" to some people in this nation, but I'm witnessing first hand
the damage it's doing to our new, emerging adults in the workforce.
They're absolutely clueless about how to manage their finances, how to
maintain basic long term relationships, how to have any sort of compassion for
the people around them, and so on. With each new batch added to the work force
the overall maturity level and responsibility decreases. Because they
weren't given the tools for social survival by their families (because
those families were so dysfunctional) they are now less proficient and less able
to fully realize their professional potential. This issue reaches into all
aspects of life and it's affecting everything right down to your national
security, whether you realize it or not.

toosmartforyouFarmington, UT

May 10, 2012 11:03 p.m.

Maybe some behaviors wouldn't affect Mr. Reid, but what about his
grandchildren? If they are at an impressionable age would "alternate
lifestyles" affect their view of "marriage?"

I'm
ok with rights given as civil unions or domestic partners not being
discriminated against when it comes to health and housing, employments,
education, etc. But the very word and definition of marriage conjurs up an
image or vision of a man and a woman, tied together. Whether or not they decide
to procreate is their personal choice. Any other arrangement and the ability to
procreate is not even possible. But the ability (in general) to do so has been
traditionally tied to marriage for time immemorial.

There are so many
folks ignoring the benefits of getting married today, why is it even an issue?
Let whomever wants to live together do so; protect their rights, but don't
call it "marriage" because it's really not.

ModerateSalt Lake City, UT

May 10, 2012 11:03 p.m.

Those that complain about the president's comments weren't planning on
voting for him anyway. Romney wants to frame the election around a single
solitary issue. Romney will have to learn the hard way that presidental
candidates have to address many many issues.

A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UT

May 10, 2012 11:01 p.m.

A Scientist,

The 14th amendment states "equal protection of the
laws", not "equal interpretation" of legal terms. I wouldn't
stop Elton John from marrying a woman and therefore have satisfied the clause.
If it said "equal interpretation" I would have just as much right to
marry a cow. If the law says "man and woman", no standing rights are
infringed and the principles of the law applies equally to everyone.

Rehnquist's dissent from Roe v Wade-

"To reach its result,
the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth
Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the
Amendment."

The framers didn't accept gay marriage (even
outlawing certain... activities). The same constitution unless amended is being
twisted. To argue otherwise is to willfully be deaf to any degree of human
intelligence. One can't argue "No Thomas Jefferson, you don't
believe in God... what you say you believe is irrelevant".

Respectfully, I would suggest that this issue is very
important. State recognition deals with three dramatically important things.

1) My right to vote vs the constitutionally unauthorized practice of
judicial review.

I'd rather live in a world that has wars and
struggling economies than a world where I couldn't express myself and
democratically voice my opinion. Whether or not my vote counts, whether or not
state recognition is taken away from the people and given to one party to
dictate- the issue has political consequences.

2) The state
supporting a change to one of the most fundamental building blocks of
society.

3) How important is our valuing family?

Children
deserve a Father and a Mother. To me that is more important than any political,
social, or moral issue that man can devise or theorize. There is countless
evidence that shows the impact of changes to the traditional nuclear family
having a serious and devastating impact children.

Families are
important not only to stable social structure, but peace and human happiness.
Without family as ordained of God, between only a man and woman, happiness
cannot exist. People may find pleasures, but not eternal happiness and peace.

A ScientistProvo, UT

May 10, 2012 10:24 p.m.

What is more important than the POTUS' stand on equality before the law for
all US citizens, regardless of their orientation?

I'm sure
Abraham Lincoln's opponents and critics whined that their were more
important issues than civil rights, too.

They were wrong, and the
blood spilt in the civil war testifies of the importance of these issues.

O'reallyIdaho Falls, ID

May 10, 2012 10:13 p.m.

This was simply a well choreographed stunt by Obama's reelection team.
Let's see... have Biden accidentally on purpose state his views on gay
marriage so that this puts faux pressure on Obama to finish "evolving"
right before the gala event in Hollywood where 15 million dollars can be raised.
Obama's statements about Biden getting a little ahead of him on their big
revelation was nothing but an act. It's just yet another diversion tactic
from the real issues- the economy and healthcare for which Obama has very little
ability to stage an act. My opinion of this president is spiraling ever lower.
In fact it's more than a spiral which could describe a gentle decline. This
is a free fall plummet. His announcement just didn't strike me as
authentic from the get-go. And now I know why. Too many coincidences. I'm
sure Obama has a tighter reign on Biden than this. And as tactless as Biden can
be, this is too big of an issue for him to spout off about accidently.

HemlockSalt Lake City, UT

May 10, 2012 9:53 p.m.

When Romney changes his mind it's a flip-flop. When Obama changes his mind
his philosophy is "evolving." It's better to talk about this issue
rather than the economy.

DN SubscriberCottonwood Heights, UT

May 10, 2012 9:47 p.m.

Another great move by the Obama campaign to distract voters from the really
important issues that are being ignored.

With less than 180 days
left before the election, this will guarantee 3-4 days of news cycles devoted to
Obama's purported conversion, the timing, reaction from various fringe
groups (on both sides) totally absorbing the limited attention span of most
voters.

Meanwhile, Obama has said not a word about his Democrat
allies in the Senate refusing to even vote on a budget for more than three
years, the torrent of debt he is creating for every gay, lesbian or straight
man, woman, child or transgemdered person which they must either pay back to
China from confiscatory taxation, or suffer the worse fate of a total collapse
of our traditional standard of living. Not to mention the ticking time bomb of
the Iranian nuclear program, the demonstrable failure to make significant
progress in Afghanistan, and the corruption in Obama's Justice
Department.

Those are far more important issues to every American,
but Obama skillfully deflects attention elsewhere to avoid them.

Oooh, look, over there, something shiny......

Watch for similar
diversions at least once a weak until November 6th.

A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UT

May 10, 2012 9:42 p.m.

Obama's "stand"? It would have read better as Obama's
"political move to stand opposite to Romney in hopes it will get him
elected". It isn't a stand when you only stick around when it's
popular.

Here's a REAL stand...

"THE FAMILY is
ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal
plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be
reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the
teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are
established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance,
forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational
activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love
and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and
protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture
of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are
obligated to help one another as equal partners."

That's
worth standing up for- and it is being and will be stood for.

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

May 10, 2012 9:19 p.m.

"The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any
impact on my life, or on my family's life, always struck me as absurd,"
Reid said

Amen Brother Reid (can I still call him "brother"
since I'm not LDS any more?).